Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Out of context quoting

I've noticed a lot of sources seem to quote Elon Musk out of context and even though they are direct quotes they miss the context in which he said things causing the source themselves to misunderstand the topic. What's the best way to handle these types of information in the article? People just revert the change when I try to clarify the quote with context. It's made worse by what seems to have been a mass replacement of direct links to his comments to said incorrect re-interpretations of what he said so it leaves the user having to click through several sources when verifying to find out the original source was quoted incorrectly. (This is common for example in almost every business insider/engaget/gawker/etc article included in this page.) Ergzay (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Such as? QRep2020 (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

See the recent change log with back and forth reverting by Firefangledfeathers for one example. Ergzay (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

If you think the cited secondary sources have it wrong, or are missing context, we should find better secondary sources. If the article's summary of the secondary source is misleading, we should change the article to better match. But we should definitely not be pulling out secondary sources and replacing them with our own analysis of primary sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm using primary sources, directly from the interview. There is no better source of truth than the words of the man himself. You don't need secondary sources for this kind of thing. It's not "my own analysis" it's the analysis of anyone who isn't interested in clickbait money making from spreading incorrect information that spreads a narrative. Elon Musk has never been "anti-vaccine" for the general populace. In fact he later got it himself. He (very correctly given information at that time) that younger adults and children with no pre-existing health concerns were at low risk for fatality. This was the opinion of almost half of the US population, including myself. Ergzay (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Your beliefs on primary sources are unaligned with Wikipedia policy and guideline. See, just as a limited starting point, WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Someone's own words are definitely not the best source of truth. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers You're misconstruing that page. Someone's own words are most certainly the best source of truth of the opinion of that person. A secondary source re-interpreting someone's words and then stating what their opinion is, is a distortion of the truth. The truth is rather best achieved by directly quoting or neutrally summarizing the words of the person at hand. The previous source piecemeal took only parts of sentences and then wrote an article around those few words and it wasn't even directly citing the interview, it was citing it's own summary of the interview so it wasn't even a secondary source anymore. Do note the primary thing about WP:BLP and that is "Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism" which this article is unfortunately full of, including what I just edited.

Secondly WP:BLPPRIMARY does not say to not use primary sources like you claim, it's entirely about the privacy of the individual and that is why care should be taken on primary sources. Ergzay (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and your edits have not been taking care with the primary sources. You've amalgamated parts of a primary source to present a narrative that is not in the original or in any cited secondary source. Insider is not a tabloid. I'm also adding a CNN and CBS source to bolster the secondary source coverage in the article.

You have only been able to maintain your version of the article due to edit warring. Please self-revert and take the time to build consensus for your changes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers Insider IS a tabloid for most intents and purposes. They are the business equivalent of the paparazzi. Also it's not a green source on WP:RSPSS.

I'm pretty sure I already have consensus, and someone who prefers to just revert any change I propose. But sure let's bring in more people... @HAL333 @Warbayx to start. Ergzay (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I think your allegation about my preferences is unfounded and untrue. If you'd like to remove that part of your comment, you can delete this comment of mine as well (see WP:MUTUAL), provided no one else has responded by then. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers I'll leave it up, your actions in your repeated reverts of my good faith attempts at trying variations of the change and then bringing me to the administrators noticeboard over it in a failed attempt to silence me have left me with little faith left to assume that you're acting in good faith. Ergzay (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPSTYLE, Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects. Citing the primary source is fine, but we cannot add our own analysis of the context. That can only come from reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, quotes must follow WP:PMC, especially in WP:BLP.

For a specific example of where you are doing this, and I have also reverted per BLP guidelines (not only Firefangledfeathers, as you have stated), Musk's comment about not getting the COVID vaccine does not offer context that he meant at risk for mortality. You have violated the rules to stitch together (I assume in good faith) what you believe to be balancing the context with your analysis of what he said. The fact is that he does not clarify, nor does Swisher, the surrounding conversation on the podcast does not either, and neither does the source material.

I've attached a transcript of the relevant portion of the podcast here, since it is hidden behind a paywall:

Extended content

Quoted from Kara Swisher Podcast . Kara Swisher I’m not coming to your parties Elon. [MUSIC PLAYING] We’ll be back in a minute. [MUSIC PLAYING] Elon Musk has gotten into some trouble surrounding coronavirus. He tussled with local authorities when he insisted on keeping his factory open despite lockdown orders. On Twitter, of course, he called shelter in place orders quote, “de facto house arrest” and predicted quote “close to zero new cases in the US by the end of April.” At the end of April, with many new cases every day, he tweeted quote “free America now” in all caps. On this issue, we do not agree. Elon Musk I mean this is a hot button issue where rationality takes a backseat. So in the grand scheme of things, I think this is— what we have is something with a very low mortality rate and high contagion. And something that is of low risk to a young person is of high risk to an older person. Essentially, the right thing to do would be to not have done a lock down for the whole country. But to have, I think, anyone who is at risk should be quarantined until the storm passes. Kara Swisher All right, but this storm is coming again. You know, you’re talking a lot about saving humanity but these are humans that die in the process. Elon Musk Everybody dies. Kara Swisher I know that, Elon. [CHUCKLES] I get that that. Elon Musk The question is what, on balance, serves the greater good. Kara Swisher And you feel lock-downs did not do that? Elon Musk No. (SIGHING) This is a no win situation. It has diminished my faith in humanity, this whole thing. Kara Swisher Because? Elon Musk The irrationality of people in general. Kara Swisher And so when you say it questions your faith in humanity it’s that people are irrational around it? Elon Musk Yes. Kara Swisher And you wish they would not be. So when you see — will you get a vaccine? Are you — what do you do with our own family? Elon Musk No. Kara Swisher You won’t get a vaccine. Why is that? Elon Musk I’m not at risk for COVID, nor are my kids. Kara Swisher Mm-hmm. So you want do it. Elon Musk No. Kara Swisher And how do you — what do you do now? Do you just go to work? Is that how you’re conducting yourself and your family? Elon Musk Yeah. Kara Swisher Yeah. Elon Musk This entire time SpaceX has been at work. Through this entire thing we didn’t skip a day. We had national security clearance because we were doing national security work. We sent astronauts to the space station and back. Tesla has been, apart from several weeks where we were shut down by the state and then overzealous Alameda County, which was a travesty. But apart from that we’ve been making cars this entire time. And it’s been great. Kara Swisher All right, let me ask you one more question. So you were arguing for the car makers point of view. Let me take a point of view as someone who’s worried about their family. If they have elderly people or stuff like that. How do you answer your employees who say, I think you’re putting me and my family at risk. What do you say to them then? Elon Musk Great, stay home. Kara Swisher Stay home. That’s it. Elon Musk Yeah. Kara Swisher Do they get penalized for that? What can they do if they feel that they are at risk? Elon Musk I mean, if they have a legitimate reason to be at risk then they should stay home. Kara Swisher All right, so when they decide — this is your policy. When these workers are worried and do you feel that they have — I want to just get back to that — put yourself in their shoes. If you feel they have a good reason to be worried, do you feel a duty to pay them and make sure they’re OK? Despite the fact that you don’t agree with how they feel about COVID versus how you feel about COVID. Elon Musk Let’s just move on. Kara Swisher Just move on. That’s what you want to do. Elon Musk Kara, I do not want to get into a debate about COVID, this situation. Kara Swisher OK, all right, OK. I want to finish up talking about — Elon Musk If you want to end the podcast now, we can do it. Kara Swisher OK. What did you say? No, we don’t. I don’t want to end it. I just want to understand where you — but I do. I feel like I understand where you are. So one of the things — Elon Musk And I should say, we’ve also spent quite a lot of time with the Harvard epidemiology team doing antibody studies. Tesla makes the vaccine machines for CureVac. Gates said something about me not knowing what I was doing. It’s like, hey, knucklehead, we actually make the vaccine machines for CureVac that company you’re invested in. Kara Swisher Seems like you have a lot of passion around this topic. Like that you feel this has been blown and that there are better ways to do it, which is what you do in your other parts of your life correct? Whether it’s Tesla or SpaceX. The rockets aren’t being reused, the cars aren’t electric, the way we address viruses is irrational. Elon Musk It’s very irrational. I probably should allocate some time to this more — I mean, I have allocated some time to this but only less than 1%. So maybe it should be more than 1%. Kara Swisher You should. Stop complaining about how irrational people are and do something about it. That’s what I say to you. Elon Musk Yeah, and honestly I’m just trying to figure out like — OK. Honestly, I really am just trying to do the most amount of good with the time that I have on this earth. And, you know, not always succeeding but that’s the goal. And then it’s like OK, man, but I’ve got to do this without my brain exploding and going too crazy. So then it’s like, OK, if I’ve got to allocate brain time to this one thing then I’ve got to take it from someone else. Well, what’s that going to be? And then I’ve tried just working myself to the bone, but you just can’t keep doing that."

SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I disagree with your assumption of bad faith, but this isn't the place to discuss it. As of this moment, which comments from other users would you point at to demonstrate consensus that you 'already have' for your version of the COVID quote content? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

On this removal of a reliable source, the CBS article is not unrelated. It verifies the "not at risk" quote, and demonstrates that there is lasting coverage. Please restore it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers What do you mean by "verifies the quote"? A quote is self-verifying. Further why is "lasting coverage" a relevant point? Of course there is lasting coverage. There is a tremendous vested interest in society at large to libel and slander this person. It doesn't matter on if it's factual or not. People have pre-concieved notions and seek to confirm those notions in absense of fact. Selective quoation by articles while ignoring context is one of the primary methods that such libel is created. Ergzay (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If you believe Elon Musk is quoted out of context, this is precisely why we need good quality secondary sources, and primary sources are not enough. BeŻet (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't read secondary sources myself so it's hard to go out and find them. I read primary sources on Elon Musk constantly and have done so since around 2011. This is exactly why he constantly rants on the media because they misreport and misquote him constantly. (And seeing what they've done over the past decade it's put me in a position of passionate agreement.) This is what happens when the media is only written by people want to tear him down. I don't know what to do about it rather than try to use primary sources directly. Ergzay (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@BeŻet Also, why are "primary sources not enough"? There is no rule that we must not use primary sources for WP:BLP just that we must be careful to avoid including personal information. Ergzay (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The language in Wikipedia:Primary sources is broader: "Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people[.]"

The point is it is expressly difficult, some might say impossible, to say something is taken out of context without providing an interpretation of a text, which only a secondary or tertiary source can provide. QRep2020 (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The page says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." however I offered no "interpretation" in my later edits. They were DIRECT quotes with no interpretation added. Ergzay (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding more quoted text does not necessarily release the need for interpretation, especially if the concern is context. QRep2020 (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@QRep2020 And what is wrong with leaving the interpretation to the reader? There is no Wikipedia rule about that. Ergzay (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that presenting primary sources and leaving the interpretation to the reader inherently requires you to select the sources, which can result in POV issues even when you are merely intending to provide context in good faith. As set out in WP:PRIMARY, it is preferable to let reliable secondary sources do the selection and interpretation – and then take care to consider aspects such as WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE and WP:BIASED. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rosbif73 Except I wasn't selecting sources. I was using the exact same source that was being used before, followed through to the original primary source. In all the source replacement I've been doing of replacing poor secondary sources with primary ones I've just been pulling out the original primary source that the secondary source used. Secondly, Business Insider is not a reliable secondary source (it's yellow in the source list). Ergzay (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Because you can pick and choose quotes in order to convey an unintended meaning. A secondary source helps avoid this, as any interpretation can be attributed to a specific author. WP:PSTS explains this. BeŻet (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@BeŻet Except in this case the secondary source themselves is doing exactly that. They are picking and choosing quotes in order to convey an unintended meaning. Ergzay (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate that current sources are doing that, you need to find additional secondary sources that don't. At the end of the day, it is your opinion that those sources are doing that, and what Musk's intended meaning was. These are the rules. BeŻet (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP very specifically states: Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person, Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies, and Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

You should absolutely be reading secondary sources if you plan on continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. Per WP:PSTS, they are the most important part of creating encyclopedic content on Wikipedia. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@SquareInARoundHole I've seen WP:PSTS before, but it talks about analysis, but the edit in question before my inclusion of direct quotes, still is just a direct quote from Elon Musk, but just blocked through the secondary source. It's not an analysis by the secondary source. It's a direct re-quote of the primary source material. Ergzay (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Explict policy says "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." I was not making any of those. I was just copy pasting quotes (though I agree my first edit in the series was of that form). Ergzay (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The podcast was a conversation. You pulled quotes that were in response to other statements. You stitched them together and contextualized his answer to the question in ways that secondary sources did not. You clarified what he said in a way that secondary sources did not do (and the primary sources did not either). Further, you make it seem like you are acting in bad faith when you say things in your summaries like that I reverted what you did because "I don't like what [Elon Musk] said" and cast aspersions on other editors, like Firefangledfeathers. We are all doing our best to maintain standards here by writing what reliable secondary sources have said. Kara Swisher asked of Musk: "You won’t get a vaccine. Why is that?" and Musk responded, "I’m not at risk for COVID, nor are my kids." The other quotes were not in the secondary sources. You saying it was in the context of mortality is a synthetic claim, and using other parts of the podcast to attempt to contextualize it with that same claim is the same synthesis with a different vehicle. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@SquareInARoundHole The podcast was not a conversation. It was an interview. It was Elon pontificating with prompting by the host. When a reasonable person says something they say something with the understanding of previously established context. By that point Elon was responding with very short one offs "Yes" and "No"s indicating he was already fed up with the conversation which is something people do when they think they've said all they need to say on the subject and are just trying to wrap the conversation to its end. When he thus said "I'm not at risk for COVID, nor are my kids" he was re-iterating what he had already said at that point. This is obvious to any listener of that interview (it's much more obvious when listening to it as opposed to reading a transcript). His tone of voice conveys a lot of meaning that simply does not exist in the secondary source. I'm not "syntehsizing" anything I'm carrying forward the information already in the primary source.

And to maintaining standards, that's exactly what I'm trying to do myself. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The Wikipedia page on Elon Musk should not be a tabloid where quotes are selectively quoted to convey a meaning that does not exist about a living person. If we cannot agree I'm fine with completely deleting the quote entirely given it's sourcing by those who want to pigeonhole Elon Musk as a science denier or what not. Is that acceptable to people? Ergzay (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no plans to let this rest until the aspersion and lies on this page that Elon Musk is an anti-vaxxer is purged from this page. It is utterly false. Ergzay (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

One route we could go with this is we can start bringing up sources that show the bias and lack of credibility of the writers of the various articles used as sources. It's dirty pool and I'd prefer not to go that route though. Ergzay (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. It was a conversational interview, as in a dialogue between two people that was published. A back and forth. Meaning, there was a question and an answer, and you took responses to other parts of that conversation to create a context that did not exist. That's against Wikipedia's policies. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@BeŻet Okay what is wrong with the wording "According to some sources, in September 2020, Elon Musk said he would not get the COVID-19 vaccine because he was not at risk for COVID."? I've made more than sufficient point in this talk page on the problem with the secondary sourcing of this issue such that there is enough to discredit the secondary sources as being accurate. Several people here however deem that we MUST use secondary sources even when they are inaccurate so I am just clearly stating that it's the sources saying it rather than Elon Musk himself saying it. Why would you revert the change? Ergzay (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Because it is completely unnecessary to state that since no other source denies this. Musk gets asked You won’t get a vaccine. Why is that? and he directly replies I’m not at risk for COVID, nor are my kids. It's clear as rain. Your change has been reverted so please follow WP:BRD. BeŻet (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@BeŻet It's clear as day that he wasn't talking about his ability to get COVID if you actually look at the context. He used "at risk" right before that in the conversation. Exact same wording also talking about Covid. Ergzay (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

There is one sentence in the article about this. In September 2020, Musk stated that he would not get the COVID-19 vaccine, because he and his children were "not at risk for COVID". This is not implying any context. The interview does not contextualize what he means by "risk" either. "...what we have is something with a very low mortality rate and high contagion. And something that is of low risk to a young person is of high risk to an older person. Essentially, the right thing to do would be to not have done a lock down for the whole country. But to have, I think, anyone who is at risk should be quarantined until the storm passes" we're not going to say hea meant "at risk" for death because it doesn't say that, nor do the secondary sources. We aren't implying anything by what he said. We're stating what he said.

If I were you, I'd open an RFC about whether or not it's WP:DUE, because repeatedly trying to add your analysis of what he meant is not going to make it, and it's become disruptive. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's your own interpretation, and it's precisely why we need good quality secondary sources, which is something that several editors have been trying to explain to you over the course of the last few days. Please listen to them. BeŻet (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The propose edit involves weasel-wording. It also makes it seem as if he said these things in private or at least not in a published interview. QRep2020 (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Reintroduce (a portion) of the previous text regarding Musk's statements about public transportation

While I appreciate the values of concision and parsimony, I do think that something about Musk's stated views on public transportation should be brought back into the article under the Technology sub-subsection. Perhaps some derivation of the portion with the most citations? I.e, "At a Tesla event on the sidelines of the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems [...] he dismissed an audience member's response that public transportation functioned effectively in Japan. His comments sparked widespread criticism from both members of the public and transit experts. Urban planning expert Brent Toderian started the hashtag #GreatThingsThatHappenedonTransit which was widely adopted by Twitter users in order to dispel Musk's notion that everybody hated public transport." Towards that end, here are some additional sources discussing the events: https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-awkward-dislike-mass-transit/, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-20/elon-musk-doesn-t-understand-why-mass-transit-succeeds, https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/elon-musk-versus-twitter-on-the-topic-of-public-transportation.html, https://fortune.com/2017/12/16/elon-musk-public-transport/ . QRep2020 (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Just added two sentences on it to the tech section, which I feel is due weight. Does that work? ~ HAL333 01:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

What you added back now was almost the same as my last copy edit consisting of only two sentences—which you reverted twice—except you moved a reference to the end. I thought I was copy editing to align with your edits for conciseness, so I am confused why you say the length of the description is due weight now but undue weight before. It often seems like you are just deleting criticism of Musk before reading the content. Anyway, since it is almost the same as my recent copy edit, I consider the current recent summary of his views on transportation to be appropriate. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, Hal. :) QRep2020 (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Canada convoy protest

This section has been around for a while in some form, so I don't think it can be completely cut when there's a dispute over it unless there's a clear consensus to do so (per WP:NOCON.) I'd oppose complete removal, since Musk's views on the protest have had significant attention on multiple occasions, roughly comparable to similar amounts of text devoted to his other views in that section; and it seems well-sourced and neutrally-worded enough that it's hard to see how it could be a BLP violation that would justify immediate removal. --Aquillion (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I support keeping the status quo language for now. As noted in the above section, I support a trim of the Views section, but I don't think wholesale removal is warranted for that particular view. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion:, Regarding your edit summary on the reversal, that actually is EXACTLY how ONUS works despite your belief. I am aware there is currently a discussion about the conflict between ONUS and NOCON, but that has nothing to do with the current revert here. There is already another article where his views are stated, there is currently a discussion (see above) about the views section in this article being too long, and there is nothing stable about that section as I removed it a while ago and it came back. There is also nothing about "stable versions" being allowed to remain when there is a BLP violation. It is not my duty to go to the BLP noticeboard. It is your duty to get consensus if you want it include it. I am also surprised that an experienced editor would edit war to keep material in a BLP that is being disputed. You may not agree with ONUS, but that doesn't allow for adding the content without consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Your memory is incorrect. Your edit warring history was at Views of Elon Musk to remove "Canada convoy protest", not at Elon Musk. In Elon Musk, "Canada convoy protest" has been long-standing. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

A couple of months is not "long-standing".  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@TechnophilicHippie:, Actually, I believe it was both. You will need to look through the history if you want an exact date. Regardless, it is being objected to now and ONUS applies. Also, as a new editor who seems to have a keen interest in editorializing Elon Musk on Wikipedia, I will be blunt and let you know I will not tolerate incivility. Do not accuse me of edit warring. If I have done so, ANI is that way. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I pointed this out below, but just to be sure that it isn't lost: While I object to your interpretation of ONUS, it doesn't really matter because there's a rough consensus to include at this point. --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

You first removed "Canada convoy protest" at Elon Musk on 11 May 2022, very recently. I don't think I have been editorializing Elon Musk, just including information that had been omitted and belongs in the article. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think it's useful to repeat that discussion here (and besides, I'm seeing a consensus to include), so I'll just point out that WP:BLP only imposes the requirement to default to removal for that meets the requirements of WP:BLPREMOVE. Do you assert that that is the case here, and, if so, in what way? Note specifically that believing something is undue is not sufficient - you must assert that there is a problem with the sources or the way we are summarizing them. I don't think that that can reasonably apply here, since they're very straightforward and our wording directly summarizes them. In any case, given that I'm seeing (at this point) at least three people (myself, TechnophilicHippie, and Firefangledfeathers) who think it should be included in some form and only you arguing for complete removal, I think there's a rough consensus to include, so... rather than arguing about process, it would be more useful for you to focus on why you believe it should be completely omitted. As I said, if you want to assert that this is a BLP violation, you'll have to point to the specific part of BLP you feel this text violates. If you just think it's undue, that's not usually a BLP issue outside of truly egregious situations; and in any case if you focus on specific, detailed problems you have with the current sourcing, that will give us something to focus on in terms of answering your objections (eg. finding more / better sources, for whatever definition of "better" reflects your objection; or tweaks that address whatever problems you have with how the current sources are used.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

You don't see an editorialization issue?? "which was founded and internationally funded by far-right activists, and associated with the QAnon movement." Why they hell would someone put that there unless they want to try to tell readers that Musk must support QAnon?? That's just the tip of the iceberg. And no, the fact that it was there does not mean ONUS should be ignored. It is a BLP. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I oppose that line for sure. To be clear, the version I support (for now) is this one, which Aquillion recently restored. Firefangledfeathers ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]

@TechnophilicHippie: would you still support inclusion if the line about far-right/QAnon is left out? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers Originally, the line about far-right/QAnon wasn't there, but I added it after @CNMall41 first removed "Canada convoy protest" with a comment about "This is not lasting". I interpreted it to mean that they thought the protest was over and no longer relevant, so I added the context about the far-right and QAnon to show how it is still relevant. Later on, Bill Williams removed that line in particular, because they thought the connection between the convoy and the far-right/QAnon was contentious. This indicates that the meaning of "Canada convoy protest" is opaque, and readers will not know the political context of the protest unless it is explained.

I support inclusion if that line about far-right/QAnon is left out, as that was how it was originally. However, there should be some improvements to be made to that section if editors of Elon Musk are surprised and skeptical that he endorsed a far-right movement. This indicates that the Elon Musk article isn't properly explaining his views. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I am also unsure why we are reporting every Tweet this guy ever makes. They are also covered in-depth so should we make a page called "list of Tweets by Elon Musk?" Absolutely not. So why is this one being included? --CNMall41 (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)]

I agree that subarticle would be a bad idea. Ideally Views of Elon Musk would include views (not necessarily tweets) that are given weight by reliable sources and this main article would summarize those views. Perhaps we could restore the content to the Views article (removed recently) and discuss how to shorten/summarize here? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• I mean, we decide what's important based on what gets coverage, and this has received significant coverage. It doesn't mean we must include it, of course, but I at least think it's enough that it doesn't make sense to treat it as an obvious exclusion. And if I had to guess why his tweets get a lot of coverage, part of it is probably because Twitter was a large part of his branding and identity even before he announced he was going to buy it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Ok, that's a more useful reply. Based on that objection, I've restored the rest and left that fragment out - I agree that it could possibly be WP:SYNTH. You'll have to be more specific about the rest of the iceberg, though, since I'm genuinely not seeing any other problems. But please don't remove the entire section again unless you can actually articulate how every single part of it is unsalvageable - I'm seeing a rough consensus to include in some form here, no real way the rest could be construed to be a BLP violation, and I'm making at least some effort to address your concerns. No matter how strongly you feel it's undue, that's not sufficient to let you just ignore three other editors on its own. --Aquillion (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you see discussion towards some type of consensus, but not actually consensus so I guess I can agree that at least it is moving in the right direction. You are correct about SYNTH as well. I would be up to getting rid of the entire section until we come up with a summary for the views that link to his Views of Elon Musk page, but I know others likely will not agree on that. So, I would hope you have the same passion for the discussion above (reducing the views section) as you do about restoring the content specific to the Canada convoy protest. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@HAL333: "Canada convoy protest" isn't just about two tweets, but many tweets in support of the protest. Not all his tweets in support of the protest were listed individually, because the subsection is a summary/overview instead of a detailed description. I am not sure if you read the section itself when you removed it, because this and the fact that it's not a "trucker protest" was explained in the subsection text. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Yet, unlike Musk's more infamous tweets like the 420 jokes, these few tweets have failed to display longlasting coverage in reliable sources. It is simply Undue weight to give in two entire paragraphs. Although as a compromise, perhaps one sentence may be due. ~ HAL333 01:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I already trimmed it in my latest edit. What you removed in your recent reverts regarding this topic was three sentences, not two paragraphs. One sentence for his support for the convoy protest, one sentence for his Hitler comparison, and one sentence where the Auschwitz Museum and American Jewish Committee criticized his Hitler comparison:

Musk tweeted extensively in support of the 2022 Canada convoy protest against COVID-19 restrictions and Canada's Liberal government, which was branded as the "Freedom Convoy" by its organizers. Musk tweeted and later deleted a meme comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler. The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum accused Musk of exploiting the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the American Jewish Committee called on Musk to apologize.

TechnophilicHippie (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. In the larger realm, there are myriad Musk tweet bursts that have garnered the same level of attention in reliable sources. We can not feasibly include each one. To have an entire paragraph is simply undue weight. Yet, in the spirit of compromise, I added one sentence on it. Does that work? ~ HAL333 03:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Multiple editors have argued here that it is due weight. How about this?

He voiced support for the 2022 Canada convoy protest and was criticized for comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler.

TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

That's fine with me. ~ HAL333 15:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Cheeseburgers

Thanks for being calm and civil, especially those that has very opposing views to each other. It is really rare to see a civil debate about Musk on the Internet nowadays. Have a cheeseburger, you will like it! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I want extra, extra pickles please. QRep2020 (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

We should block the false narrative that Musk is saving humanity from COVID

During the height of the pandemic, I saw some online interactions along the lines of:

Person 1: "Elon Musk is keeping the Tesla factory open during the pandemic and making things worse."

Person 2: "No, Elon Musk is using the Tesla factory to build ventilators!"

Later on, I saw debates like the following:

Person 1: "Elon Musk is a COVID denier."

Person 2: "How can Elon Musk be a COVID denier if he donated ventilators? He's doing much more to help the situation than you are."

In other words, there is misinformation floating around that Elon Musk was using his wealth and power to help the fight against COVID through his philanthropy. Currently, the relevant Wikipedia article passage says this:

In March 2020, Musk promised that Tesla would make ventilators for COVID-19 patients if there were a shortage. After figures such as New York City mayor Bill de Blasio responded to Musk's offer, Musk later offered to donate ventilators which Tesla would build or buy from a third party. However, Musk eventually purchased and donated medical devices that multiple hospitals noted were BiPAP and CPAP machines, not the much more expensive and sought-after invasive mechanical ventilator (IMV) machines.

A reader who already thought "Musk donated ventilators" might think, after reading this, "Okay, maybe they weren't ventilators, but at least he was trying to help." Musk was not "trying to help", because a lot of the context is missing. Here is my proposed version with the missing context:

In March 2020, in response to a request to repurpose the Tesla factory to make urgently-needed ventilators, Musk promised that Tesla would make ventilators "if there is a shortage". When Nate Silver responded that there was a current shortage, Musk replied, "Ventilators are not difficult, but cannot be produced instantly. Which hospitals have these shortages you speak of right now?" After figures such as New York City mayor Bill de Blasio highlighted their hospitals' ventilator shortage and responded to Musk's offer, Musk then later offered to donate ventilators which Tesla would build or buy from a third party. However, Musk eventually purchased and donated medical devices that multiple hospitals noted were BiPAP and CPAP machines, not the much more expensive and sought-after invasive mechanical ventilator (IMV) machines.

In other words, given that he had to be told three times that there was a ventilator shortage before he accepted the reality, Musk didn't offer to build ventilators because he understood the gravity of the situation. He bet on the ventilators not being needed. Around this time, he was also tweeting that COVID cases were inflated by doctors, hospitalization rates were low in California, etc. The purpose of my proposed the change is not against concision and not about trying to give undue weight to Nate Silver. The purpose is to counter misinformation that Musk isn't a COVID denier because he donated ventilators, and that he should be credited for volunteering to help save lives during the pandemic. This is false, and Wikipedia should clarify this at the expense of conciseness. Conciseness is a virtue, but should not come at the expense of clarity. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC); edited to replace unsourced statement with sourced statement TechnophilicHippie (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

First, this isn't a blog. Keep it short. And that's a strong no from me. Your proposal is not concise or well-written. I don't understand how bloating the first sentence improves anything, and the weird random choice to mention Nate Silver is clearly undue weight. And despite your reasoning (which is dangerously close to single-purpose), I don't think the current version is "misinformation" or paints Musk in a better light. ~ HAL333 23:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to your assumption, my purpose isn't to "paint Musk in a bad light", but to counter misinformation, which is in line with Wikipedia's goals, in that misinformation is not permitted. If you think I am against the current version because it hypothetically paints Musk in a better light, that is incorrect and has nothing to do with my objection. Nate Silver happened to hold Musk accountable for his words, and maybe without Silver announcing to everyone on Twitter to contact Musk if their hospitals had a ventilator shortage, Musk wouldn't end up donating medical devices to hospitals. However, I don't care about mentioning Nate Silver as much as disagreeing with the article suggesting that Musk, unprompted by criticism and of his own volition, offered to build or donate ventilators. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Nate Silver happened to hold Musk accountable for his words Do you have a reliable source for that? If not, it's original research and shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. ~ HAL333 00:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure which part of this statement you find contentious, but the Engadget article directly quotes the Twitter exchange between Musk and Silver. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

So what? Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Engadget is a crap source anyways. But my main point is that this narrative you're trying to construct here—that Musk only promised to make ventilators as a bluff as he believed shortages would not occur—is not well documented in sources, let alone to a level that would merit mention in this article. We need to adhere to summary style. ~ HAL333 02:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You asked me a question and I answered it, and now you ask, "So what?" Engadget is a green reliable source for technology at WP:RSPSS and perfectly fine source for mentioning direct quotes. You are claiming without evidence that I am trying to "construct a narrative" when I am basically saying that I am trying to deconstruct a narrative. In my proposed change, I am using direct quotes without analysis, and it is up to the reader to draw their own conclusion given the wider context. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Engadget is a blog and subpar source. Note that RSP says all statements from it must be attributed. Regardless, I can promise you that FAC reviewers would demand its removal. (I've even had reviewers that made me remove Politico, which is taking it a bit too far.) My point still stands: if you can only get pissant sources thinly mentioning something about Musk (who is covered 24/7 by all top-notch RS), then it shouldn't be included. Once again: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. ~ HAL333 03:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Please, just think about the larger picture. Is this singular, poorly-covered Twitter interaction with Silver notable? Does it adhere to summary style? Are you getting into weird, vague minutiae? This subsection should summarize Views of Elon Musk, which curiously does not mention Silver or this slant of yours. Why don't you go write about it there? ~ HAL333 03:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

this slant of yours You call it a "slant", yet you yourself admitted that the events I described are verifiable, responded with "So what?", and now your concern is that the green reliable source is not up to standards of Featured Article reviewers. Please review WP:ASPERSIONS, especially points 3 and 4. I haven't done anything to warrant this kind of response. If it is because of the accusation at Talk:Elon_Musk#Sources_and_neutrality, note that this is the same person who appears to think that not calling Musk a co-founder of Tesla is editorial bias. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with HAL333, and I'm a particularly overly-wordy editor. I believe the passage is balanced and accurate as-is, and does not make Musk out to be saving humanity from COVID. I also don't see any aspersions, Hal did not say you were trying to "paint Musk in a bad light", they said "I don't think the current version is "misinformation" or paints Musk in a better light." SquareInARoundHole (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The passage itself doesn't make out Musk to be saving humanity from COVID. That is just common misinformation floating around that isn't challenged by the passage. But the passage itself suggests that Musk offered to build ventilators by his volition and concern for the ventilator shortage, unprompted by criticism/someone calling him out to do it. HAL said my reasoning is close to SPA and suggested my objection is related to it hypothetically painting Musk in a better light, which implies my purpose is trying to make Musk look bad. They also said I was trying to "construct a narrative" and create a "slant". Also, I have no objections to the criticisms that my proposed change is badly written or wordy, and am trying to think of a better version. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Single-purpose editing is not misbehavior. Hal mentioned that because your reasoning does not seem aligned with the goal of the project, but rather serves a particular agenda.

You claim Silver held Musk accountable (unsourced), and also edited in a narrative that while true, was not written by most sources. [1], [2], [3], [4]. These sources determined it was not necessary to clarify it was in response to a random tweet, and CNN specifically tied it to efforts from other vehicle manufacturers. You are writing into the passage that it says it was unprompted. That is not implied. The slant Hal is referring to is that Musk was prompted by the tweet he responded to. There’s no evidence of that.

Your heading and section does suggest the passage is a part of a false narrative that Musk is saving humanity from COVID.

Try to give Hal the benefit of the doubt. He’s pointing you to SPA so you can read how editing with an agenda can skew your bias into synthesis, original research, and undue weight.

Hope this helps. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Well put, Square, QRep2020 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Not to me. It seems like they didn't read what I wrote to HAL, so I have to respond again with very similar things in different words. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Single-purpose editing is not misbehavior. Hal mentioned that because your reasoning does not seem aligned with the goal of the project, but rather serves a particular agenda. Single-purpose account specifically is misbehavior. My reasoning is to counter misinformation, which is aligned with the goal of the project. I don't see how this is an agenda, unless you think I am actually the one spreading misinformation.

You claim Silver held Musk accountable (unsourced), It is hard for me to distinguish this from bad faith misrepresentation. The source is already provided in both the original and proposed passages and again in my response to HAL when he asked for the source, and here is is a third time.

and also edited in a narrative Oh, I see what happened. Originally, there was an additional primary source for Musk's tweet, and I described it as "in response to", because it was literally a Twitter reply where Musk's tweet has the tweet he's responding to nested inside, but this reference was removed by HAL in the current version. Primary sources are not prohibited for things like direct quotes, but I understand that they may be undue weight by themselves. There is a CNET article (green secondary source) that clarifies it is "in response to". I don't follow Elon Musk or Nate Silver on Twitter, but I originally became aware of the Musk-Silver ventilator context through secondary sources about two years ago. I also follow tech news. You perceive me as trying to "edit in a narrative", but from my perspective, this is non-original-research context already covered by the media that was omitted from the Wikipedia passage, and I am trying to restore the missing context that is the cause of many people being ignorant of the context of Musk's ventilator offer. Now I realize this perception of me being biased by stem from me reading more tech news than mainstream news.

Your heading and section does suggest the passage is a part of a false narrative that Musk is saving humanity from COVID. It was supposed to provide the background to frustrating misinformation that I have witnessed, but now I see that by highlighting the misinformation, I become associated with it, instead of being seen as trying to counter it. To be clear, the heading was not meant to suggest that the passage is part of the false narrative, but to highlight an existing false narrative in people's conversations that we should consider when we write for the benefit of the reader's understanding.

Try to give Hal the benefit of the doubt. He’s pointing you to SPA so you can read how editing with an agenda can skew your bias into synthesis, original research, and undue weight. Except I haven't done original research, which I already know is not permitted. I may have accidentally done synthesis when combining secondary sources to clarify something, but I thought I have been editing robotically and mechanically all this time without inserting any editorialism, just describing a facts as a sequence of events and taking care to avoid implying causality. You are the fourth person to accuse me of editorial bias, but no one has yet provided an example of my biased editing. (The one where I inserted "In response to" looks like it, because the primary source that shows this unambiguously had been removed by HAL during their cleanup activities, but it was a Twitter reply in the strict technical sense.) TechnophilicHippie (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@HAL333: Please stop reverting without reading the changes. The fact that you reverted the whole thing, instead of just changing the parts you disagree with, indicates that you rolled back without reading my edits yet again and makes it appear like you are against the editor instead of the edit. I replaced a yellow source with a green one and other improvements. Isn't the policy to change the parts you disagree with instead of wholly removing someone's edits? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I read the changes. That is why I reverted it. ~ HAL333 00:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Please explain why TechCrunch is a better source than CNET. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I just got rid of it all together. That line is fully supported by the Wapo reference. No need for a superfluous CNET ref. ~ HAL333 02:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I said TechCrunch, not Engadget. You had to replace the TechCrunch source with Vox, because the Bill de Blasio line was not fully supported by Wapo. You didn't want to use the CNET source, because it would be acknowledging that my edit was correct for replacing the TechCrunch source, yet you reverted the whole thing. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

As I've stated before, sources like Engadget and CNET are in a grey area. FAC reviewers would likely recommend to replace it with better sources. There's no reason to settle for mediocre sources when we have better ones at our disposal. ~ HAL333 03:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Vox is better than CNET? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. See this. Vox has a stronger, more recent consensus, while CNET is only reliable for tech. ~ HAL333 04:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

This is what I see:

"Vox is considered generally reliable. Some editors say that Vox is a partisan source in the field of politics. See also: Polygon, The Verge, New York". It has 4 archived discussions, the last in 2020.

"CNET is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles." It has 16 archived discussions, the last in 2015.

Musk and Tesla building/donating ventilators touches on both technology and politics, would it not? When you say Vox has a "stronger" consensus, how did you come to this conclusion? I thought 16 > 4. Do the archives show only consensus, or also non-consensus? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The number of times something is discussed has nothing to do with the strength of a consensus. ~ HAL333 05:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking that to meet FAC standards (which was the original reason you didn't accept my green WP:RSPSS Engadget source), we would eventually need to swap your Vox link for my CNET one you reverted? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Criticism of Tesla, Inc.

I think it is appropriate to mention this article here as we going along a NPOV discussion. This article is undoubtedly biased to certain controversies in my opinion, such as in section "Musk's unfulfilled promises", "Tesla fanbase" and "Passenger Play", where the length is disproportionate to the certainty and validity of the claims. I've also mentioned this issue at the article's talk page, just to be sure. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

No it isn't appropriate. This is the talk page for Elon Musk. Articulate whatever complaints you have at Talk:Criticism of Tesla, Inc., not here. ~ HAL333 16:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with HAL, this is clearly an articulation of complaints, not of an "ongoing discussion", done in biased fashion. Furthermore, there is no current discussion to point to because the complaints are broad and mostly statements of opinion. Thus, inappropriate. QRep2020 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: @HAL333: See WP:INAPPNOTE for guidelines on how users can inform others of an ongoing discussion. It's appropriate, but the notification needs to inform users of the discussion in an unbiased manner. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

How, then, could I do so? I am aware of WP:CANVASS, but I don't know anyway better than this. Doing a RfC? Or pinging everyone at recent page history? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You did not previously explain exactly what you took issue with, so I do not understand any of this escalation.

I saw that you finally have presented what you took issue with, and responded. Let's try having an actual discussion first. QRep2020 (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Alright, let's do that before getting more comments. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

He's a very controversial figure, needs a "Controversy" heading

Musk denied and mocked the reported accusation that he sexually harassed a flight attendant on a private jet in 2016.

Unsworth sued Musk in 2018 for libel and slander after Musk referred to the diver as a “pedo guy” and a “child rapist.”

Musk made light of sexual harassment case.

Musk is famously anti-Union 2A01:CB18:80A6:AC00:BD3E:3EFD:53FB:5FD2 (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The controversies surrounding him are integrated into other sections of the article. QRep2020 (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:STRUCTURE, "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." TechnophilicHippie (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2022

On the show "Joe Rogan Experience" #1169, aired on Sept 6, 2018, Elon Musk stated: "My Wikipedia page has me listed as a business magnate." To which Joe Rogan replied: "What would you call yourself?" Elon Musk: "Business Magnet". "Could someone please change my Wikipedia page to "Business Magnet?"" HadleyKay (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done No, we aren't going to vandalize our own articles because he asked to do so during an interview. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2022

Please consider adding the following to the section Elon Musk#Marriages, dating life, and children:

Upon reaching her 18th birthday, Musk's transgender daughter Vivian petitioned the Los Angeles County Superior Court in June 2022 to have her name change from Xavier Musk, the name given to her at birth, to Vivian Jenna Wilson. She lists as her reason for the name change as "Gender Identity and the fact that I no longer live with or wish to be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form." -- 50.231.49.42 (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done (not by me, just marking as done). Rosbif73 (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Vivian Jenna Wilson

One of Elon Musk's children has filed a petition to change her name to Vivian Jenna Wilson, citing "Gender identity and the fact that I no longer live with or wish to be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form". This should be updated in Musk's page either now or after the hearing on Friday (June 24 2022), including changing sentences about the custodial arrangements of Musk and Justine Wilson's children. I understand it's best to cite the actual documents and not gossip websites, but I'm not really sure how to go about accessing them, so I'll settle for raising the issue. Aabernat (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I see that this information has already been added to the article. However, it seems to me that saying "Twins Griffin Musk and Vivian Jenna Wilson were born in April 2004" is anachronistic. When the twins were born, they were called Griffin and Xavier. Would "Twins Griffin and Xavier (now Vivian)" or similar be acceptable in terms of trans etiquette?

On the other hand, should we really be naming them at all, and mentioning Vivian's change of name? WP:BLPNAME tells us that reliably sourced names of non-notable family members may be included only subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. Do readers really need to know the children's names and gender identities in order to properly understand Elon? Rosbif73 (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, I see that in the time it took me to compose this reply, another editor has removed the non-notable children's names. The subject is thus moot. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I hadn't noticed this discussion before removing it. My reason for removing is the same as Rosbif73's. We don't need to know the children's names to understand the subject (Elon), and we don't need to know this particular person's name(s) to understand that they don't like their dad. – ².O.^Boxing 10:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Strange how they decided to leave an infant and a toddler there just because the mom is notable. Either they gotta go too or all names have to be added back. Trillfendi (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Either they gotta go too or all names have to be added back. That's not quite how BLPNAME works. The reason I didn't remove X AE A-XII is because I believe such an unusual name is worth noting (the media coverage was undoubtedly considerably more than any of his other children). That's the only non-notable family member that's named. – ².O.^Boxing 18:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Private family matters should be kept private. She said she no longer wishes to be associated with her father and I’m she she wouldn’t appreciate her gender being litigated on Wikipedia by his politics. While I’m all for public records, trying to cite court records is not the best solution. Trillfendi (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2022

The text "The family was very wealthy in Elon's youth; Elon's father was also elected" should be changed to "Elon's father was elected". It cites Ashlee Vance's biography, but the book doesn't make a claim that the family was "very wealthy".

In Chapter 2 of the book, "Africa" the closest statement is:

"The family owned one of the biggest houses in Pretoria thanks to the success of Errol’s engineering business. There’s a portrait of the three Musk children taken when Elon was about eight years old that shows three blond, fit children sitting next to each other on a brick porch with Pretoria’s famous purple jacaranda trees in the background. Elon has large, rounded cheeks and a broad smile.

Then, not long after the photo was taken, the family fell apart. His parents separated and divorced within the year."

This is a far cry from the "very wealthy" claim. emarkp (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I don't have entire book to even verify anything, but very wealthy isn't a far cry from what else is out there. See Business Insider South Africa & Time. Buffalo News and The New York Times compare his situation with wealthy and rich peoples in South Africa. If consensus can be found, changing from "very wealthy", to "well off" and citing the Time source could be done. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

A quick remark: I recall the book talking about them having multiple housekeepers and going on many overseas trips, so at least "wealthy" is implied. QRep2020 (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The BI SA article seems strongly disputed by Elon & his biographer, and was published without getting comment from Elon. A longer in-depth dive into the facts strongly indicates the story of "emeralds in the pockets" simply isn't true: https://drewisdope.com/elon-musk-emerald-mine/

Additionally the book clearly shows that Elon's /grandparents/ had the private plane, which Errol inherited, which is where the "overseas trips" come from. emarkp (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Errol: “So we went to this guy’s prefab and he opened his safe and there was just stacks of money and he paid me out, £80000, it was a huge amount of money.”
• With cash in hand, Errol was offered to buy half an emerald mine for half of his new riches (£40000) – and he agreed to the deal.
• Errol: “So I became a half-owner of the mine, and we got emeralds for the next 6 years.”

Sounds like they were very wealthy to me. QRep2020 (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Elongate

Should the article mention Musk's request to call the flight attendant scandal "Elongate"? Though pop culture sources do verify the tweet, I don't the the major media sources mentioning this at all. If we do include it, we should include the criticism that he's received for the joke. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It shows the way that, in his reaction, he sought to trivialise the allegations. I agree that any reliably sourced criticism of this should be included. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I've found this but the criticism is sourced to 'Twitter users'. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I found reference to his original tweet here and in reference to the flight attendant scandal here, so seems like it could be included, but weight seems to say no, unless others can find more. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, found another reference in Time. I'd support inclusion. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I mildly support. QRep2020 (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I oppose inclusion. It seems like trivia. But I don't feel all that strongly about it. ~ HAL333 23:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Isi96: wanted to make sure you're aware of discussion related to your recent edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers Thanks for notifying. I've reverted my edit. Isi96 (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: wanted to make sure you're aware of this discussion related to your recent edit. We might now have consensus to exclude. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Firefangledfeathers. I think that if we make a consensus now, it is going to be excluded because of recentism bias. Feel free to revert my deletion though. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with the edit you made, CSC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Greater weight given to hypothetical Martian colonists than real, living humans on Earth

I never understood why content affecting real, living humans on Earth covered by multiple secondary reliable sources with green status at WP:RSPSS is marked as WP:UNDUE, while the plight of hypothetical Martian colonists covered by one article is given more relative weight. Elon Musk should be about what secondary reliable sources publish on Musk, which focuses more on real human impact, not about how Musk or Musk fans perceive his aspirations. I am not saying coverage on hypothetical Martian colonists should be reduced, but coverage on impact to real humans should be expanded. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's why: per WP:UNDUE we must present material "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". There's been a massive amount of reliable sources on Musk in the context of Mars. The fact that we only have four sentences on Mars colonization, despite the thousands of RS, really demonstrates the due weight threshold for inclusion on this main article. If you're interested in more Wikipedia policies, please read: WP:DETAIL, WP:BECONCISE, and WP:SUMMARY. ~ HAL333 03:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you add/replace with green WP:RSPSS sources for:

• nuclear weapons to terraform Mars

Can you add at least one additional green WP:RSPSS source for:

• direct democracy Nevermind. "Direct democracy" is fine. I thought it was undue weight before, because it was duplicated in two sections and undue weight in (Earth) Politics, but I removed one of the duplicates already.

-- TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC); edited TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It's because without Musk, Mars colonization wouldn't have the same prominence as it is today, and it may forever be in the sci-fi realm. Without Mars, Musk wouldn't be like he is today. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@TechnophilicHippie:, please stop edit warring or I will report you to ANI. Let us discuss the issue here on the talk page. I fail to see how In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week. is "misinformation" as you claim or how adding redundant fluffy text improves it. ~ HAL333 22:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

References

RfC: Restore Musk’s Co-founder of Tesla title?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Is Elon Musk a co-founder of Tesla?

There was a previous RfC regarding whether Musk can be considered a co-founder of Tesla; previous consensus opposed its inclusion in the lede. The previous RfC did not discuss all of the publicly available information. Based on the 3 points below, I propose that editors restore Elon Musk’s title as co-founder of Tesla as it had been present in the lede of this article from 2009-2020.

1. A court settlement in September 2009 was reached between all 5 co-founders of Tesla, within which Martin Eberhard, Marc Tappening, Ian Wright, JB Straubel, and Elon Musk have all agreed with each other that all 5 are to be considered co-founders. The following sources are completely unambiguous about who is to be considered a co-founder of Tesla: LA times, CNET, Forbes

2. Tesla’s website names Musk a co-founder here

3. Some have made the argument that since Musk was not present on day 1 of creation of the Tesla “shell company”, he cannot be considered a co-founder. However, according to this LinkedIn article: "Co-founders are the people involved in the initial launch of a startup company. Anyone can be a co-founder, and a co-founder doesn't necessarily have to have been there from the inception, although that is usually the case. It also does not necessarily include all of the people who were there on that first day”.

The article goes on to state that there is no formal or legal definition of a co-founder. For this reason, I don’t believe it is our place as Wikipedia editors to decide amongst ourselves who can or can’t be considered a co-founder of a particular company. That would be the job of the company itself (point #2) or an agreement between the co-founders (point #1). The previous RfC did not make any attempt to use RS to define what a co-founder actually is.

Please carefully consider the merit of these 3 points and consider restoring Musk’s co-founder of Tesla title. If there are editors in opposition, I respectfully request that they provide reliable sources that either a) disputes that Musk is a co-founder of Tesla or b) definitively states that all co-founders must be present on day 1 of the creation of a "shell company". Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.65.88 (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Abort RfC This is a biased RfC. You should present the issue briefly and neutrally. ~ HAL333 21:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it OK to present the initial RfC statement as: "Is Elon Musk a co-founder of Tesla?" (both neutral & brief), sign, and then add my stance in comments under the initial statement? 71.247.65.88 (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, normally you should give your reasoning below. I think something like "Should Elon Musk be described as a 'co-founder of Tesla' in the lead and infobox?" would be ideal. But at this point, I think it would be best to close this RfC and reopen another one after a few other editors chip in on what would be a neutral question. Check out Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment for further guidance. Best ~ HAL333 22:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Other editors: would "Should Elon Musk be described as a 'co-founder of Tesla' in the lead and infobox?" be a fair RfC question? ~ HAL333 22:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@HAL333:, I had already submitted a new RfC with neutral & brief language but it seems it was reverted. Shall I start a new discussion and a new RfC now? I was going to use the question: Should Elon Musk be considered a co-founder of Tesla in the lede and infobox? 71.247.65.88 (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Why does the article not describe Elon Musk as a co-founder of Tesla?

As a matter of court settlement he is a co-founder of Tesla, why doesn't the article fully state that he's thusly the co-founder of Tesla? Ergzay (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

And to jump ahead of the argument "he wasn't actually a founder because he wasn't there at time of incorporation", it's quite common for startups to add co-founders after the actual founding, sometimes for example the very first employee if impressive, will get "co-founder status" and can call themselves a co-founder. Ergzay (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh and here's a secondary source. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2021/11/10/tesla-had-5-founders-only-two-got-really-rich/?sh=f4610af46272 Ergzay (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

And there's a huge list of reliable sources mentioning him as founder in the archive Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_1#Ongoing_Debate_As_of_April_2014 Ergzay (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

We covered this is in a RfC. Consult the archives. QRep2020 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Musk is not a co-founder of Tesla. This has already been addressed in a strong RfC. ~ HAL333 18:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors knows better than a court settlement. Warbayx (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

A court settlement, not unlike an NDA, is not always reflective of reality. Eberhard and Tarpenning founded Tesla in 2003. Musk did not become involved until the following year. I cannot understand how anyone can seriously claim that Musk founded Tesla. ~ HAL333 20:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

because nothing existed yet, no employers, no offices, no intellectual property, no trademark. EM and J. B. Straubel had already planed to start an electric car company until they realized a group was doing the same thing. Both of them planned to use AC Propulsion tzero technology and commercialize it. EM and J. B. decided to join up with Eberhard, Tarpenning and Ian Wright. Warbayx (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Does not matter. QRep2020 (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

How could they have created Tesla when they didn't even own the trademark? Warbayx (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you know what an RfC is? QRep2020 (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

He is not the co-founder. The court settlement simply determined that he can call himself the co-founder without getting sued by the actual co-founders. Furthermore, there's already been an RfC which established consensus. BeŻet (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any sources on that? That's not what this settlement says https://www.cnet.com/culture/teslas-musk-gloats-over-eberhard-ruling/ Warbayx (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussing or arguing a position on a Talk page is not subject to the same restrictions as introducing edits on a Wikipedia article. QRep2020 (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

CNBC in 2021: "Contrary to popular belief, Elon Musk did not start Tesla." Case closed. ~ HAL333 01:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources in the article. The court case was about libel and breach of contract. It has no bearing on undeniable facts. BeŻet (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Warbayx: That's... not a settlement. A settlement is just an agreement between the parties involved. They could have agreed Eberhard call Musk the "world's smartest CEO", in exchange for a million dollars. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should proudly declare Musk the world's smartest CEO. It's just an agreement between them, not fact. BUT, what you've linked to is not a settlement at all. It's a judge ruling that the court wasn't going to unilaterally force the defendants to declare Eberhard one of only two co-founders. The judge wrote PLAINTIFF HAS NOT DEFEATED THE DEFENDANTS' THRESHOLD SHOWING THAT THE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROTECTED ACTIVITY BY THE DEFENDANT. We have this thing called free speech. But just because it was free to be said does not mean it's factually accurate. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Open a new RFC or propose an edit. Here’s a source that may help you: [5] SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

A judge had already ruled against Eberhard being one of two founders almost two months before the defamation suit was settled. Warbayx (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok? The source says this: After months of legal wrangling, Tesla Motors Inc. Chief Executive Elon Musk and former Chief Executive Martin Eberhard have agreed that they, along with three others, are officially equals and co-founders of the company that makes the $109,000 Tesla roadster. It’s a reliable secondary source saying they agreed Musk is a co-founder. That’s a decent basis for changing consensus in a proposal or RFC. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ergzay can issue an RfC if he wants. Xpenz (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I won't be opening an RfC as it's obvious the outcome of such an RfC in this environment on Wikipedia, regardless of what the truth of the matter is. Majority rules in such places even if the majority is wrong. Ergzay (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Then why bother mentioning it at all? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, this hasn't happened since the RfC, and secondly, this is an agreement between two men. BeŻet (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

There’s no need to argue this. I was just giving OP an opening for building consensus should they choose. They choose not. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It is most peculiar then how Tesla's blog post from 2010 refers to Eberhard as co-founder, but not Musk: https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-roadster-%E2%80%98signature-one-hundred%E2%80%99-series-sells-out. Furthermore, it clearly states in the boilerplate that "Tesla Motors was founded in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning to create efficient electric cars for people who love to drive." QRep2020 (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@QRep2020 Maybe because the blog post was written by those people. Ergzay (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This is really simple. Musk calls himself the co-founder. He gets sued. Then people settle in an agreement. This doesn't change any facts, though. Just rich people stopped arguing. BeŻet (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly the conclusion of the previous RfC and the rightful conclusion if I may be so bold. QRep2020 (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

A blog post are you serious? There is literally a court ruling that already made it clear Eberhard cannot call himself one of two founders. Warbayx (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a blog post from the company, are YOU serious? QRep2020 (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This blog post could have written by anyone at Tesla it does not prove anything, and the fact that you believe it does speaks volumes about your bias. Warbayx (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Elon literally posted his "Master Plan" on the blog so I think we can trust it as an official communications channel.

And I'll remind you that the Elon Musk Talk page is not the place to suggest that there is a bias or anything at all wrong with my editing/ writing. QRep2020 (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@QRep2020 Since you are pointing to Tesla's website, I'll point you to this link: https://www.tesla.com/elon-musk where the Tesla website very clearly lists him as a co-founder: "Elon Musk co-founded and leads Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and the Boring Company."

You seem to be very motivated in muddling the truth in favor of anti-Musk claims on this matter, as well as other matters in this Elon Musk article. Please, leave your political leanings out of this article. It is probably best for the readers of Wikipedia if you spend your time elsewhere. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This was already resolved in previous RfC. Musk wasn't one of the founders of Tesla, and the majority of reliable sources don't identify him as such. See: [6][7][8]. Stonkaments (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

There is loads of credible sources that mentions him as a co-founder aswell. [1] [2][3][4][5] [6]

[7] Warbayx (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Agletarang (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Warbayx that Elon Musk should have his co-founder of Tesla title restored on this page, as it has been from 2009-2020 before the "hive mind" stepped in and deleted objective truths from this page. Look at edit history if you don't believe me.

Although Tesla's own website is not a third party source, I believe it is still a crucial supporting website. https://www.tesla.com/elon-musk "Elon Musk co-founded and leads Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and the Boring Company." The court-settlement is further evidence that Musk is a co-founder.

If none of that convinces you, I point you towards @Warbayx other six third-party sources. Surely, we as Wikipedia editors don't know more than all of these sources combined. It's time to have a little humility.

We need to restore objective truths to this page. Not succumb to the "hive mind" who believes Musk has never worked a day in his life and received all of his wealth from a family-owned emerald mine. This is Wikipedia, not CNN or Fox. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

As has been stated multiple times in this section, inclusion will only be had with consensus from a new RFC. Listing sources in this talk section does not do a good job of building a changed consensus from the previous RFC. I encourage those of you who feel strongly about this to engage in the process. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC is based on "majority rules" and as is clear from reading the rest of this page, the majority is clearly anti-Musk.

The objective truth is that Martin Eberhard, Marc Tappening, Ian Wright, JB Straubel, and Elon Musk have all agreed with each other that all 5 are to be considered co-founders. This is a fact, shown here: https://www.cnet.com/culture/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-are-five/

To say that a RFC must be issued to state a fact in this article just shows how poltically biased this page has gotten. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

No, that is not the "objective" truth. In actuality, the precise terms of the agreement were not disclosed. Tesla released a statement though: "Neither side disclosed details of the agreement. But a statement released by Tesla about the confidential settlement referred to the men as “two of the co-founders of Tesla." https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-sep-22-fi-tesla22-story.html QRep2020 (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Your source and your opinions on this matter literally contradict each other. Your LA times source literally says: "After months of legal wrangling, Tesla Motors Inc. Chief Executive Elon Musk and former Chief Executive Martin Eberhard have agreed that they, along with three others, are officially equals and co-founders of the company that makes the $109,000 Tesla roadster."

@QRep2020 You are clearly only reading what you WANT to read, huge confirmation bias. 70.18.209.50 (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Opinion noted, faceless IP editor. Please take any further criticism to where it belongs. QRep2020 (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

No. The participants were well aware of what the sources say when the agreement was arrived at in the previous RfC. You nor anyone else have even addressed the arguments therein. This discussion is going in circles and should be ended. QRep2020 (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Your argument was literally contradicted by the source you provided. I would prefer to talk to anyone else on this matter, considering how much bias you have shown on this page. 70.18.209.50 (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Two independent news sources have verified that Martin Eberhard, Marc Tappening, Ian Wright, JB Straubel, and Elon Musk have all agreed with each other that all 5 are to be considered co-founders. The article should reflect this fact, and restore Musk's co-founder of Tesla title as it was present on this article from 2009-2020.

1. LA times: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-sep-22-fi-tesla22-story.html

2. CNET: https://www.cnet.com/culture/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-are-five/ 70.18.209.50 (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree, Elon is clearly the co-founder of Tesla. Xpenz (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Those men agreed to not sue each other over claiming being co-founders. That doesn't change any facts about the matter. BeŻet (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact is that the 5 of them agreed that each of them is to be considered a co-founder. Who are you to disagree with that? Are we living in YOUR reality? 71.247.65.88 (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

They can call themselves whatever they like. Musk called himself a technoking, yet we won't include this in the article. BeŻet (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why this discussion is still ongoing if nothing has changed since the RfC. There has been a decision made, consensus achieved via the RfC. Feel free to start a new one, but only if there have been some significant developments since then. BeŻet (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It should not be. I would officially close the discussion but I know some users in particular would rage about it and use it against me. QRep2020 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The previous RfC clearly did not discuss all of the published evidence. Specifically, these 2 sources are completely unambigous about who is to be considered a co-founder of Tesla:

1. LA times: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-sep-22-fi-tesla22-story.html

2. CNET: https://www.cnet.com/culture/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-are-five/ 71.247.65.88 (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference between (a) "Musk was one of the original co-founders of Tesla" and (b) "Musk was not really one of the original co-founders of Tesla but later reached a legal agreement allowing him to be considered as such". The consensus of the previous RfC was effectively that we should not say (a) when we mean (b). Rosbif73 (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rosbif73 Who are we, as Wikipedia editors, to decide who is and isn't a co-founder? A court settlement on this exact issue was reached between the co-founders of Tesla. This court settlement must supersede any opinions we may have as Wikipedia editors. 98.113.203.234 (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

If you were to found a company tomorrow, and then six months later I were to invest millions in it and persuade you to sign an agreement with me entitling me to refer to myself as "co-founder", would that actually make me a co-founder of your company? No, of course not. And if some reliable sources then document our little agreement, whilst pointing out that I wasn't there on day one, should Wikipedia refer to me as co-founder? Again, of course not. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Listen, there is no law stating who can be considered a co-founder of a company and who cannot, so it is not your place to decide. The closest we have is the court settlement agreed upon by all 5 Tesla founders in September 2009, which allows all 5 of them to call themselves co-founders. With this settlement, Musk is referred to as a co-founder on Tesla's website and elsewhere. The Wikipedia article on Tesla's history is actually highly accurate on this matter, you should probably read it: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.#Founding 98.113.203.234 (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The article states that there was a settlement. The article also reflects the reality that Musk did not found Tesla. It is perfectly accurate as it stands - give it up. QRep2020 (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

How many times do we need to explain that this was a defamation suit filed by Eberhard against Musk, and both men have settled a dispute? BeŻet (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, the dispute was settled and the result was that Musk is to be considered a co-founder. I am dumbfounded why the current state of the article refuses to acknowledge the existence of this settlement. 98.113.203.234 (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Except the article does: "A 2009 lawsuit settlement with Eberhard designated Musk as a Tesla co-founder, along with Tarpenning and two others." QRep2020 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

So our own article states that Musk is a Tesla co-founder, yet people are arguing that he is not? There is clearly a discrepancy here that must be resolved, and the people claiming he is not a co-founder are heavily outweighed on evidence! I have yet to see a single reliable source reporting that Musk is not a co-founder of Tesla. Musk's co-founder title must be restored to the introduction of this article. Supporting sources:

1. LA times: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-sep-22-fi-tesla22-story.html

2. CNET: https://www.cnet.com/culture/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-are-five/

3. Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2021/11/10/tesla-had-5-founders-only-two-got-really-rich/?sh=f4610af46272 71.247.65.88 (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no discrepancy. The article first says, "[Musk] was an early investor in electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (now Tesla, Inc.). He became its chairman and product architect, eventually assuming the position of CEO in 2008." And then the article says, "A 2009 lawsuit settlement with Eberhard designated Musk as a Tesla co-founder, along with Tarpenning and two others." Stop trying to force a change that is not warranted in the slightest. QRep2020 (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The discrepancy is very simple: are we to call him a co-founder or not? We can't say he is a co-founder in one place in the article and not the other. And as the 3 sources above show, he is clearly 1 of 5 co-founders of Tesla. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

He is not a co-founder in the usual sense of the word, i.e. he was not one of the original founders. The settlement says that he is entitled to be considered as a co-founder, which is not the same as actually being one. This is what the article quite rightly conveys. PS: please read WP:BLUDGEON before replying again to this thread. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

He is not one of the original founders, i.e. a "co-founder". However, according to the result of the dispute, Elon Musk can call himself one without repercussions. This was a dispute between two people. Please drop the stick. BeŻet (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

"This was a dispute between two people" No - it was not. The settlement was between all 5 co-founders of Tesla, not just Eberhard and Musk. For this reason, it is much more substantial more than you lead on. It is not our place as Wikipedia editors to decide who can and can't be considered a co-founder of a company - that would be the job of the company, and more specifically an agreement between the co-founders, which is precisely what the settlement is.

Still waiting on a single, credible source that either: a) disputes that Musk is a co-founder of Tesla or b) definitively states that all co-founders must be present on day 1 of the creation of a "shell company" (read more here).

From LinkedIn article: "Co-founders are the people involved in the initial launch of a startup company. Anyone can be a co-founder, and a co-founder doesn't necessarily have to have been there from the inception, although that is usually the case. It also does not necessarily include all of the people who were there on that first day."

You seem to be just making up rules about who can and can't be considered a co-founder without any supporting sources, while I have provided several. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can dispute this, Eberhard and Tarpenning both agreed that all five of the early employers deserved the co-founder title. That's why its different then if Elon just said "Hey im the founder now". The dispute was definitely not just between only Eberhard and Musk but for all the first five employers.

https://www.fastcompany.com/1367866/tesla-lawsuit-drama-ends-five-company-founders-emerge

"Eberhard and Musk have reached a rather unexpected resolution–instead of agreeing to share the title of “founder”, the pair has designated five people as company founders, including Musk, Eberhard, JB Straubel, Mark Tarpenning, and Ian Wright." Xpenz (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@QRep2020 Do not circumvent the necessity to provide ample supporting sources by trying to prematurely close this discussion. There are unresolved matters in the comments above: Still waiting on a single, credible source that either: a) disputes that Musk is a co-founder of Tesla or b) definitively states that all co-founders must be present on day 1 of the creation of a "shell company"

If neither a) nor b) can be provided, Musk's co-founder of Tesla title should be restored based on the settlement sources (also linked above)

From LinkedIn article: "Co-founders are the people involved in the initial launch of a startup company. Anyone can be a co-founder, and a co-founder doesn't necessarily have to have been there from the inception, although that is usually the case. It also does not necessarily include all of the people who were there on that first day." 71.247.65.88 (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This has been talked to death and no one is required to respond to your demands. QRep2020 (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

These are not my demands - This is what Wikipedia demands. See: WP:NOR 75.127.162.34 (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

There's no original research involved in calling him an "early investor". See for example [9] which uses that exact expression or [10] which says that Musk didn't start [Tesla] but became a major investor in the early years. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

No - "early investor" is not the topic of discussion. The topic being discussed is whether Musk can be called a co-founder of Tesla. Those who are opposed have not provided a single source that: a) disputes that Musk is a co-founder of Tesla or b) definitively states that all co-founders must be present on day 1 of the creation of a "shell company". Since no sources have been provided, that stance is WP:NOR.

Us in favor of Musk being called a co-founder of Tesla have provided many sources: 1. LA times 2. CNET 3. Forbes which all unambiguously classify Musk as a co-founder.

In addition, this LinkedIn article clearly states that co-founders of a company do not necessarily have to be present on day 1. 75.127.162.34 (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is what applies. Consensus was decided in previous discussion, and unless consensus changes here or in another discussion that will determine what goes in the article. No one is trying to define co-founder, or find sourcing to state he "isn't a co-founder", because those aren't the reason for it being excluded. It is due to the consensus from the previous discussion. WP:OR applies to what is in the article, it does not apply to the talk page discussions themselves. If the consensus arrive at decision not to include something, then that is what will be followed as long as what is put in the article is verifiable/not OR, and doesn't break any other rules. The article does not state "Musk isn't a co-founder", it simply doesn't say "Musk is a co-founder. There is no original research in the article. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't here for the previous consensus, so I cannot speak to it. But, as per @Rosbif73 "There's a difference between (a) "Musk was one of the original co-founders of Tesla" and (b) "Musk was not really one of the original co-founders of Tesla but later reached a legal agreement allowing him to be considered as such". The consensus of the previous RfC was effectively that we should not say (a) when we mean (b)."

If the consensus of the previous RfC was reached without using a reliable source to define what a co-founder actually is, this is literally the definition of original research, regardless of whether WP:CONSENSUS was used. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources". The previous consensus is why it is not in the article. Consensus isn't gained by (just) using RS, it is gained by discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that the previous consensus did not use RS at all...

But, as far as I can see within the recent activity of this section, new consensus seems close but majority favors restoring Musk's co-founder fo Tesla title to the article.

Those who support: Myself,@Ergzay@Warbayx@Agletarang@Xpenz

Those who oppose: @BeŻet@Rosbif73@QRep2020 71.247.65.88 (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive actions. QRep2020 (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Not that it is really relevant, but two of the users on the "support" list have been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia and multiple users have been left off of the "oppose" list. Furthermore, it is not immediately clear what Agletarang was agreeing to, but if one looks at their previous comment on this Talk page, they indicate that they do not see anything about the article that requires modification, which indicates that they likely would be opposing this significant change: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1083031443 . I will assume good faith here as is the policy, but please try not to misrepresent opinion blocks. QRep2020 (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE. While a consensus could be established from a discussion like this, right now there isn't a consensus to over turn previous one. A new discussion with reference to this and the older discussion(s) would be better, possibly in a RfC as multiple people have suggested. A section asking editors if they think it should be back, would be better than this section that simply asks why he isn't described as a co-founder and people explaining why he isn't described as such. The current section would be skipped over by several because the questions had been asked and answered. WikiVirusC^(talk) 22:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not what consensus means or how it works. As mentioned several times before, if new sources have appeared since the last RfC which drastically alter the factual landscape of the discussion, by all means start a new RfC. Otherwise, there is no point in prolonging discussion in this thread. BeŻet (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

On @WikiVirusC suggestion, I think creating a new section asking editors if they think Elon's co-founder of Telsa title should be back is the best path forward, and we can attempt to reach a consensus there. I agree that the "Why?" question in the section's heading has been asked and answered, so we need to move forward to an actual discussion about changing consensus. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

We've achieved a consensus already. What you're describing is an WP:RFC. You can start one if you believe there's some new evidence which can drastically affect the outcome. Otherwise, redoing RFCs until you get the result you want is disruptive. BeŻet (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@BeŻet, they did start an RfC. See #RfC: Should Elon Musk be considered a 'co-founder of Tesla' in the lede and infobox? below. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)